Malack wants a "child".

[allenw]

Malack seems remarkably undead-like, despite one brief outdoor daytime scene. Plus he's a high-level cleric, who could create most undead with spells if he wanted to.

Belkar will soon draw his last breath... ever.

Coincidence? Discuss. :smallcool:

[Umbra]

He's an albino, not an undead.

[Mastikator]

He wants a real child, but he doesn't want to have it with whoever, and he probably doesn't want it to just be a replacement child. My guess is that just because he looks like the grim reaper of reptiles doesn't mean he is a monster (if anything, Tarquin is the monster). He's probably a really nice guy if you get to know him.

[blazingshadow]

evil doesn't mean having zombie children or being a total jerkass. i mean he didn't animate his real children so why would belkar be his replacement child as a zombie

[NerfTW]

What make you think he's at all "undead like"?


Maybe he's more like a mortician than a necromancer.

[zimmerwald1915]

Malack seems remarkably undead-like, despite one brief outdoor daytime scene. Plus he's a high-level cleric, who could create most undead with spells if he wanted to.

Belkar will soon draw his last breath... ever.

Coincidence? Discuss. :smallcool:
Considering the undead one creates one's children has been done. Malack's too real to steal someone else's schtick.

[Dr.Epic]

I doubt Malack is gonna pull a Fullmetal Alchemist.

Besides, child=/=homicidal, undead halfling.

[Cizak]

In my eyes, Malak seems like a really good guy, and actually far more humane than Tarquin. I think he actually wants to have a child, for real.

[Kish]

Belkar is not long for the world. In the unlikely event that Malack turns him into a vampire or any other kind of undead, he'll still be destroyed soon after that.

[Juggling Goth]

Malack wants more children for a fairly solid in-story reason: Nale killed three of his kids. Since that was a while ago, it seems unlikely that he just wants a replacement goldfish. And since he's been shown enjoying intelligent, civilised company, I'm guessing a dumb-as-rocks-even-when-alive zombie halfling wouldn't fit the bill.

[slayerx]

Well you DO have to wonder why Malack did not raise his children from death... afterall, how could Nale of all people kill his children in such a way that he himself could not resurrect them? Nale does not seem to have the means to do such a thing and If they were undead that might make things different or more tricky... though Tsukiko showed that you can bring back the undead i think. Maybe it's possible that nale got some fiendish help from sabine... Though I'm not sure if he might go through the trouble since he was planning to get rid of malack aswell during his take over

and it's also possible that being a cleric of Death, Malack might have a certain respect for death that supersedes his desire to have his children back

[Toper]

Well you DO have to wonder why Malack did not raise his children from death... afterall, how could Nale of all people kill his children in such a way that he himself could not resurrect them?
Perhaps they didn't just didn't think to come when he called. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html)


and it's also possible that being a cleric of Death, Malack might have a certain respect for death that supersedes his desire to have his children back
...but I actually like this idea even better.

[Raging Gene Ray]

The first image I got when I read the OP was of Malack dressing Belkar's corpse up in a frilly pink dress and pretending it's his six year old daughter and having tea parties with it and talking to it about her day at Kindergarten.

[Burner28]

The first image I got when I read the OP was of Malack dressing Belkar's corpse up in a frilly pink dress and pretending it's his six year old daughter and having tea parties with it and talking to it about her day at Kindergarten.

No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no noNono no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no!:smallyuk:

[scienceguy8]

The first image I got when I read the OP was of Malack dressing Belkar's corpse up in a frilly pink dress and pretending it's his six year old daughter and having tea parties with it and talking to it about her day at Kindergarten.
We've already been there. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0474.html)

[cho_j]

In my eyes, Malak seems like a really good guy, and actually far more humane than Tarquin. I think he actually wants to have a child, for real.

I agree, though your phrasing is interesting given that, to me at least, Tarquin's single redeeming quality is his genuine love for his son (and probably Nale before they fought and possibly the boys' mother before the divorce). So, actually, it seems natural that one reason Malack and Tarquin might have gotten along in their adventure/continent-ruling party is because they both are "family men."

But, yeah, small nuances of character interaction aside, count me on the side of "Malack wants a real child." He lost a family, and that hurt him deeply; I doubt he wants a quick undead minion fix.

[allenw]

But, yeah, small nuances of character interaction aside, count me on the side of "Malack wants a real child." He lost a family, and that hurt him deeply; I doubt he wants a quick undead minion fix.

You may be correct. However, we don't know that the "children" Nale killed were actual biological offspring, as opposed to "undead minions". And Belkar certainly has an affinity for Death; Malack might see him as worthy of "adoption". And look carefully at the phrasing in his discusion of parenthood, children, and adoption with V; it seems to go out of it's way to be compatible with real children *or* created undead.
And for those talking about "zombies": Even assuming that Malack is "only" a high-level cleric, he could make Belkar (for example) into most of the standard powerful free-willed undead types.

[Velaryon]

and it's also possible that being a cleric of Death, Malack might have a certain respect for death that supersedes his desire to have his children back

I like that idea, as it would lend an interesting facet to Malack's personality and history. It would be interesting to see him facing a crisis of conscience between his religion's frowning upon (or even outright prohibition maybe?) on bringing back the dead, versus his desire to have his children back.



Perhaps they didn't just didn't think to come when he called. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html)

Darn it, I can never read that comic without it bringing a tear to my eye. :smallsmile:



The first image I got when I read the OP was of Malack dressing Belkar's corpse up in a frilly pink dress and pretending it's his six year old daughter and having tea parties with it and talking to it about her day at Kindergarten.

MitD = Malack in the Dark? :smallbiggrin:

[faustin]

The first image I got when I read the OP was of Malack dressing Belkar's corpse up in a frilly pink dress and pretending it's his six year old daughter and having tea parties with it and talking to it about her day at Kindergarten.

:smalleek::smalleek::smalleek::smalleek: and I must add :smalleek:

[Aruius]

Well you DO have to wonder why Malack did not raise his children from death... afterall, how could Nale of all people kill his children in such a way that he himself could not resurrect them? Nale does not seem to have the means to do such a thing and If they were undead that might make things different or more tricky... though Tsukiko showed that you can bring back the undead i think. Maybe it's possible that nale got some fiendish help from sabine... Though I'm not sure if he might go through the trouble since he was planning to get rid of malack aswell during his take over

and it's also possible that being a cleric of Death, Malack might have a certain respect for death that supersedes his desire to have his children back

We also have to look at the other reasons why Malack did not raise his children, He might not have been high enough level to raise his children.
He might also not have the resources with which to raise all three, and why raise just one of them? Also, Nale was in league with Sabine even then, as evidenced by this strip:http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html Which opens up even more possibilities why Malack did not raise his children. Its probably not because he didn't want to.

[slayerx]

We also have to look at the other reasons why Malack did not raise his children, He might not have been high enough level to raise his children.
He might also not have the resources with which to raise all three, and why raise just one of them?

These reasons do not seem applicable. First off, to not be able to cast resurrect on his own he would have to be below lv13, and STILL be below that level in the present time since resurrect can be used years after the person in question had died; it is rather difficult to believe that Malack would be below lv 13. Furtharmore, even if he was not high enough in level he can still use scrolls of higher level spells... As for resources (including scrolls), he's effectively the co-ruler of an empire, it should be EASY for him to acquire the funds and resources he needs to make numerous castings of resurrection; hell the bounty on Nale's head alone would cover the cost for 3 resurrections... if they can afford to pay the bounty on nale they can afford the diamonds

[Aruius]

These reasons do not seem applicable. First off, to not be able to cast resurrect on his own he would have to be below lv13, and STILL be below that level in the present time since resurrect can be used years after the person in question had died; it is rather difficult to believe that Malack would be below lv 13. Furtharmore, even if he was not high enough in level he can still use scrolls of higher level spells... As for resources (including scrolls), he's effectively the co-ruler of an empire, it should be EASY for him to acquire the funds and resources he needs to make numerous castings of resurrection; hell the bounty on Nale's head alone would cover the cost for 3 resurrections... if they can afford to pay the bounty on nale they can afford the diamonds

Alright, I will concede those points. Sabine however, is still a possible factor. As an evil outsider from another plane, I'm sure there are several very evil, very bad, things she could do with them. In any case, Malack could not raise his children for whatever reason, and I have doubts that it was because of his "Respect for death".

[Juggling Goth]

You may be correct. However, we don't know that the "children" Nale killed were actual biological offspring, as opposed to "undead minions". And Belkar certainly has an affinity for Death; Malack might see him as worthy of "adoption". And look carefully at the phrasing in his discusion of parenthood, children, and adoption with V; it seems to go out of it's way to be compatible with real children *or* created undead.


Only if "orphan" is now a euphemism for "corpse". Also, we've only had one divine caster who has an emotional bond with their undead, and that's Tsukiko the necrophiliac. In contrast, Malack's whole schtick is being perfectly nice and non-scary despite being a creepy-looking cleric of death. Malack's lawful and Belkar's chaotic: Malack is not going to want one of his theological discussions over tea interrupted by Belkar stabbing his guest. Finally, it's been years since Nale killed Malack's children and the guy lives in an evil empire; if he needed replacement undead, he could've made them a long time ago.

[Prowl]

With regards to Malack, you can't always judge a book by its cover.

[grimbold]

judging from what we know of malack i think he would be horrified by belkars personality, he might raise him for a minute and then kill him because he hated belkars personality so much

[Logalmier]

evil doesn't mean having zombie children or being a total jerkass. i mean he didn't animate his real children so why would belkar be his replacement child as a zombie

I'm not so certain that Malack is evil.After all, he did say that priests of death are not necessarily evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html). It seems to me that he is not outright evil, like Tarquin is, and that his desire for another child is a sincere one.

[Qwertystop]

These reasons do not seem applicable. First off, to not be able to cast resurrect on his own he would have to be below lv13, and STILL be below that level in the present time since resurrect can be used years after the person in question had died; it is rather difficult to believe that Malack would be below lv 13. Furtharmore, even if he was not high enough in level he can still use scrolls of higher level spells... As for resources (including scrolls), he's effectively the co-ruler of an empire, it should be EASY for him to acquire the funds and resources he needs to make numerous castings of resurrection; hell the bounty on Nale's head alone would cover the cost for 3 resurrections... if they can afford to pay the bounty on nale they can afford the diamonds

The one being ressurected needs to agree to be raised. If his children are happy in the afterlife, and young enough not to get it, they wouldn't (see Roy's brother).

[Mr. Zolrane]

Yeah, I'm in the "Malack genuinely wants a child camp." As for the parts about Belkar

A) I honestly don't see The Belkster dying anytime soon; at least not this arc. (unless there's some foreshadowing I missed/forgot, in which case a link would be lovely)
B) The whole idea seems kinda out of left field.

But assuming Belkar is somehow involved in that subplot, I agree with those who say that Malack would never abide Belkar's ways. That said, Belkar might behave better with Malack: after all, Belkar has been shown to not be above caring for someone (I don't buy V's Hate/Lust Theory personally). Examples: Don't mess with Mr. Scruffy, by all that's holy! He was pissed when Miko killed Shojo, who he'd clearly become attached to. When Nale disguised himself as Elan Belkar pounced on him the instant he smelled something amiss, so he cares for Elan at the very least.

[Leecros]

When Nale disguised himself as Elan Belkar pounced on him the instant he smelled something amiss, so he cares for Elan at the very least.

Nah, he just really hates Nale

[Dalek-K]

Elan and Shojo were both amusing to Belkar...

Hate Lust Amusement would be the best way to descibe his personality.

Mr Scruffy is his animal companion so he falls under class abilities and amusement since he belonged to Shojo :3

[Mr. Zolrane]

Hate Lust Amusement would be the best way to descibe his personality.


That one I can maybe buy, at least it seems more plausible than what V suggested.

[Emmit Svenson]

(Forgive me this thread necromancy; I didn't want to start a whole new thread.)

I like the notion that Malack is a vampire; I like the notion that he intends to make one of the OotS his new child.

But Belkar? Hardly likely.

It's Durkon he has a special bond with, Durkon he's insisting on killing himself.

And it's Durkon who's been prophesied to return to his homeland "posthumously".

Wouldn't that be a vicious twist? He was so happy to hear his dead body would be laid to rest with his ancestors. What if it is rather restless?

[Snails]

I argued vehemently for the hypothesis of undeath for Belkar, long ago.

With respect to Malack, it has been counterargued that he has been seen in broad daylight multiple times. It is a good point, not insurmountable for a high level character, but still a good one.

For me, his appearance is not important. The big "tip offs" are:
(1) Belkar will "breath his last breath", not eat anymore birthday cake, etc. -- a very literal reading of the prophecy is not violated by undeath
(2) We would not be surprised if Belkar were to die any day now
(3) Belkar could stay in the story line a long time if undead while fulfilling the prophecy
(4) Malack speaks a little oddly about this desired "special bond" with his children
(5) Malack hides in his room to eat
(6) Malack is (most likely) a priest of a Death God, and D&D writers very commonly like to personally associate such priests with Undeath.

All the above are, of course, open to interpretation.

But the hypothesis has the attraction of tying together a number of seemingly unrelated minor oddities into a neat package.

[ti'esar]

I can't say how depressing it is that neither this thread nor the glue ideas it represents have been allowed to rest in peace.

Sigh.

[Snails]

Some find glue sticky.

[Emperordaniel]

For me, his appearance is not important. The big "tip offs" are:
(1) Belkar will "breath his last breath", not eat anymore birthday cake, etc. -- a very literal reading of the prophecy is not violated by undeath

Of course, the prophecy also says that Belkar will not be long for this world, so undeath is out of the question (in the long-term at least - he could still theoretically be killed, zombified, and then killed again a few strips later). :smallwink:

[martianmister]

Of course, the prophecy also says that Belkar will not be long for this world, so undeath is out of the question (in the long-term at least - he could still theoretically be killed, zombified, and then killed again a few strips later). :smallwink:

Belkar's zombified body doesn't count as Belkar himself.

[Themrys]

(Forgive me this thread necromancy; I didn't want to start a whole new thread.)

I like the notion that Malack is a vampire; I like the notion that he intends to make one of the OotS his new child.

But Belkar? Hardly likely.

It's Durkon he has a special bond with, Durkon he's insisting on killing himself.

And it's Durkon who's been prophesied to return to his homeland "posthumously".

Wouldn't that be a vicious twist? He was so happy to hear his dead body would be laid to rest with his ancestors. What if it is rather restless?

Do you want to imply that Malack is going to turn Durkon into a zombie? Hardly likely. They're friends and he sure does know that Durkon does not want to become undead.

Also, if I remember correctly, Malack requested that a) Durkon shall not be harmed and b) he is to fight Durkon himself, both of which implies that he intends to keep Durkon alive if at all possible.

[Adanedhel]

In the category crackpots:

I hope that it'd turn out T has a hand in having killed Malacks children, and having been able to blame Nale to get the maybe slightly reluctant Malack into the combat between him and Nale.

If Nale wasn't aware of this, it would explain why Nale 'taunted' Malack, even though he and Sabine are clearly deadly afraid of a fullpowered Malack.

Then when Belkar and V die, and V get ressurected (not enough diamond dust for both, and having V as the other dead would cost V a level (maybe lessening the need of seperating hir from every combat(I hate that)) and if sufficiently heroically sacrificed his death may be the start of his road to redemption (a story arc to contrast with Miko/RC's way of character)), Malack will kill T for his betrayal, and join the Order (the hardest point to justify), where in the northern lands he'll meet a nice Yuan Ti girl to have kids with.

Any possibility on this even remotly resembling the actual plot is as small as though ignorable, but I'll enjoy this daydream while it can last :p

[Mandor]

....
I hope that it'd turn out T has a hand in having killed Malacks children, and having been able to blame Nale to get the maybe slightly reluctant Malack into the combat between him and Nale.
.....


Now that would be interesting. And a bit of a twist on the whole Darth Vader / Emperor Palpatine paralells that were clearly made in the imperial city. We'd just need Malack to hoist Tarquin overhead and throw him down into a pit while Elan screams "Father!!". :smallbiggrin:

But for the overall plotline, put me down as thinking
a) Malack is very much alive, not undead of any kind.
b) Malack wants living flesh and blood children of his own, not raised minions.
c) Malack is genuinely hoping to avoid any violence with Durkon at all, but if it comes to a real fight, he'll just try to subdue Durkon.

[EmperorSarda]

I'm not sure that Malack has the arm strength to lift Tarquin...

Also for Tarquin to be involved in the murder of Malack's children, it doesn't seem like him. Tarquin and Malack are friends and from what we have seen of their interactions, that is the last thing Tarquin would do.

[Kish]

For me, his appearance is not important. The big "tip offs" are:
(1) Belkar will "breath his last breath", not eat anymore birthday cake, etc. -- a very literal reading of the prophecy is not violated by undeath
Except that "etc." includes "is not long for the world."

[Chessgeek]

Why does "not long for this world" have to be taken literally? I don't think Belkar will get rezzed, but is there a reason "not long for this world" means his body must be destroyed too? (I'm not trying to be argumentative, but it didn't really show in the way I typed.)

[Kish]

Why does "not long fo this world" have to be taken literally?
Why does any of it have to be? People have, occasionally, suggested that the whole claim is a metaphor and was fulfilled by Belkar's fake character growth, as Belkar-as-he-was is dead. I think they're very, very wrong, but I find their argument more comprehensible than arguments that most of the prophecy will come true...except for one part, which doesn't mean anything.

It doesn't mean his body must be destroyed. It does mean he isn't going to just stop breathing and remain in the world as a vampire or a death knight or a brain in a jar.

[Snails]

Which parts of a prophecy are literal and which are metaphorical is part of the fun.

[Emperordaniel]

I hope that it'd turn out T has a hand in having killed Malacks children, and having been able to blame Nale to get the maybe slightly reluctant Malack into the combat between him and Nale.

If Nale wasn't aware of this, it would explain why Nale 'taunted' Malack, even though he and Sabine are clearly deadly afraid of a fullpowered Malack.

Although it'd be interesting, I doubt that's the case; when Tarquin essentially told Malack to forget about his children for the duration of the mission, Nale started silently taunting Malack about it (panel 8 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0822.html)). This suggests to me at least that it was indeed Nale who did that.

[The Pilgrim]

Malack seems remarkably undead-like, despite one brief outdoor daytime scene. Plus he's a high-level cleric, who could create most undead with spells if he wanted to.

Belkar will soon draw his last breath... ever.

Coincidence?

Yes.

1 2 3 4 5 6

[allenw]

As the long-ago original poster, I'm willing at this point to say that Malack's "children" *probably* were indeed biological, and not necromantic. Though there's still a bit of wiggle room. Maybe he doesn't generally create undead because they remind him of the special ones Nate destroyed :smalltongue:.

However, it seems to me that the fact that Malack has a staff that can create undead makes it even more likely that Belkar could end up as one, since it increases the number of people who might "do the deed" if they got possession of the staff. I could easily believe that Elan has some skill ranks in "Use Magical Device", and he's just the type to try the "activate blindly" option. :smallbiggrin:

Regarding "not long for this world": I'd be willing to bet small money that the current arc will end with at least some characters going *through* Girard's Gate to the World O' Mystery <tm>. Belkar could be one of them.

[Dr.Epic]

Malack seems remarkably undead-like, despite one brief outdoor daytime scene. Plus he's a high-level cleric, who could create most undead with spells if he wanted to.

Belkar will soon draw his last breath... ever.

Coincidence? Discuss. :smallcool:

Halflings*=/=children

*Especially Belkar.

[EmperorSarda]

Maybe he doesn't generally create undead because they remind him of the special ones Nate destroyed

That could be a thing that someone could believe. But if that were true Malack would consider his mummies to be children and not divine gifts. I mean do we really need to discuss if Malack's progeny were living or not when there was a strip discussing adoption (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0764.html) not too long ago?

Given that Malack is a cleric of the Western god of Death, his view on the creation of the undead is probably based on his own religious teachings than any misbegotten feelings of parenthood. Malack isn't Tsukiko.

[allenw]

That could be a thing that someone could believe. But if that were true Malack would consider his mummies to be children and not divine gifts. I mean do we really need to discuss if Malack's progeny were living or not when there was a strip discussing adoption (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0764.html) not too long ago?

Given that Malack is a cleric of the Western god of Death, his view on the creation of the undead is probably based on his own religious teachings than any misbegotten feelings of parenthood. Malack isn't Tsukiko.

That strip you linked to is the primary reason I still think there's a chance that Malack's "children" were undead. Everything Malack says seems calculated to allow either possibility. "Just find the right person and get to it." "Special bond."

I grant that the mummies are good counter-evidence. He seems annoyed at their waste, but not emotionally attached. Then again, he created them only because he felt religiously obligated to, and with a staff, so they'd lack that "special bond". Especially if he really is a vampire after all, in which case it's only his personally-created sub-vampires he'd have a "bond" with.

Which reminds me: the fact that Malack saw the mummified bodies as a "gift" from his god, which he was obliged to animate, indicates to me that Nergal doesn't have any particular strictures against the undead. Malack's personal reluctance to create them could be due to (possibly) not being Evil; or it could be for other reasons, such as we're discussing.

[Kish]

That strip you linked to is the primary reason I still think there's a chance that Malack's "children" were undead. Everything Malack says seems calculated to allow either possibility. "Just find the right person and get to it." "Special bond."
I don't know how "I'm concerned about not having that special bond" as an answer to "Have you considered adoption?" would allow for Malack to mean undead. If he means created undead then there is no way for them to be anything but "adopted," unless you're suggesting that he interpreted "adoption" to mean "taking in Tsukiko's orphaned wights," which...would be a stretch.

[teratorn]

Malack would object about bringing a thread back from the dead...

[Paseo H]

In my eyes, Malak seems like a really good guy, and actually far more humane than Tarquin. I think he actually wants to have a child, for real.

He's certainly more humane, but that doesn't make him good. There are degrees of evil. It can be "just barely kinda evil when I feel the situation calls for it" to "I burn slaves alive for a nice welcome home sign," and a lot more in between those two extremes.

[Elder Tsofu]

Malack would object about bringing a thread back from the dead...

Not really since it was lying there just fit for the posters purposes, almost like a divine gift to said poster.

[EmperorSarda]

That strip you linked to is the primary reason I still think there's a chance that Malack's "children" were undead. Everything Malack says seems calculated to allow either possibility. "Just find the right person and get to it." "Special bond."

Really? Tarquin, who has known Malack for 20+ years said he was surprised at Malack making mummies, thinking he was against that sort of thing; i.e. the creation of undead.

Now why in the name of Gary Gygax would Tarquin say that if Malack had undead kids at one point?

No. Stop with your elliptical tree madness. Malack had live children. If it were that simple to create undead children, then Malack would have done so long ago. There is no special bond in creating undead, whether by spell or by staff it is done by the same unholy means and are commanded and controlled in the exact same way.


Which reminds me: the fact that Malack saw the mummified bodies as a "gift" from his god, which he was obliged to animate, indicates to me that Nergal doesn't have any particular strictures against the undead. Malack's personal reluctance to create them could be due to (possibly) not being Evil; or it could be for other reasons, such as we're discussing.

Or what it means is that Nergal is a god of death who (either Nergal or Malack) sees undeath as a generally unnatural purview of Nergal's domain.

[Rorrik]

I'd say it's a long shot that Malack look fo an undead child, after all, he doesn't approve of that kind of thing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0856.html). It's possible he really does just have a respect for death, being a cleric of Nergal.

[EmperorSarda]

Nergal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nergal) was also the deity who presides over the netherworld, and who stands at the head of the special pantheon assigned to the government of the dead

Given the basis of the gods based on some existing pantheons of ancient religions today, it seems that it definitely is a respect for the dead.

[allenw]

I don't know how "I'm concerned about not having that special bond" as an answer to "Have you considered adoption?" would allow for Malack to mean undead. If he means created undead then there is no way for them to be anything but "adopted," unless you're suggesting that he interpreted "adoption" to mean "taking in Tsukiko's orphaned wights," which...would be a stretch.

I'm suggesting (the possibility) that Malack sees three categories of "children":
1: Biological offspring.
2: Adopted living children.
3: Undead Spawn.
(I suppose maybe even 4: Adopted Undead.)

Under this possibility, Malack would consider #3 (and possibly #1) to have "that special bond", but not #2 (or #4). He may have deliberately misled V about the existence of Category #3, or it may have been an innocent (albeit Evil :smallwink:) miscommunication.

EmperorSarda: If Malack is a vampire, then he would, indeed, have a "special bond" with his spawn. And he could plausibly be against the general creation of undead by spell, but still want to personally vampify that "special someone".

As I've already said, Malack *probably* isn't a vampire, and his children *probably* weren't undead; but if he is and/or they were, I won't be surprised.

[EmperorSarda]

EmperorSarda: If Malack is a vampire, then he would, indeed, have a "special bond" with his spawn. And he could plausibly be against the general creation of undead by spell, but still want to personally vampify that "special someone".

As I've already said, Malack *probably* isn't a vampire, and his children *probably* weren't undead; but if he is and/or they were, I won't be surprised.

Because vampires totally consider adoption in the same context of creating undead spawn slaves. Right.

I mean, why would a vampire have any reservations against making undead if he was already undead? The logic astounds the mind!

[Emmit Svenson]

I mean, why would a vampire have any reservations against making undead if he was already undead? The logic astounds the mind!

The trope of the vampire who hesitates to create more vampires, yet is driven to do so out of the desire for company, is older than film.

[EmperorSarda]

The trope of the vampire who hesitates to create more vampires, yet is driven to do so out of the desire for company, is older than film.

Perhaps so. But the whole idea of Malack being a vampire is illogical. He's seen in sunlight for one. The whole children could be some specimen of undead is crazy because why would adoption and the creation of undead go together in the same sentence? Or finding the right person to get down to having more children (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0764.html)? Does a vampire need to find a mate in order to create more vampire spawn? No.

[Rorrik]

Not to mention, he's not sparkly. But who knows, maybe he's a Polar Vampire and can take sunlight in order to live during the months without night.

Whatever the case, we know that death is a regular occurrence in the Kingdom of Blood, why would he wait until Belkar to make his "child" when he has had plenty of opportunity over the years? It seems clear he is just looking for the right snake lady.

[allenw]

Perhaps so. But the whole idea of Malack being a vampire is illogical. He's seen in sunlight for one. The whole children could be some specimen of undead is crazy because why would adoption and the creation of undead go together in the same sentence? Or finding the right person to get down to having more children (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0764.html)? Does a vampire need to find a mate in order to create more vampire spawn? No.

Sunlight is an issue, though not insurmountable by magic.

To a vampire, creating spawn *is* having children (although some, such as Dracula, seem to view the process as more akin to marriage). And one of the main points of this plot arc is that even Evil parents love their children, in their own way.

A vampire (or other undead-creator) absolutely does need "find the the right person" to become their spawn, if they intend a long-term relationship.

The relevant quotes from your link:


Malack: "...and Tarquin keeps telling me that if I want more children so badly, I should just find the right person and get to it, but... I don't know."

V: "Have you considered adoption? Surely your political climate produces no shortage of orphans."

Malack: "Yes, but... I'm worried about not having that, you know, special bond."

Malack may or may not be a vampire, and his children may or may not have been undead, but I'm virtually certain that Rich chose those words very carefully in order to preserve the possibility in the reader's mind that he/they *might* be.
I also note that, if "the right person" refers to a potential mate rather than a potential "child", then remarkably little emphasis is being put on that person. Of course, Malack *is* quoting Tarquin, who does go through wives rather quickly.

[Fish]

When I saw the thread title, I thought, "Malack wants a gender-inspecific offspring? Great, he's going to marry V's ex."

Makes about as much sense.

[EmperorSarda]

Tarquin may or may not be a vampire, and his children may or may not have been undead, but I'm virtually certain that Rich chose those words very carefully in order to preserve the possibility in the reader's mind that he/they *might* be.
Or maybe Rich chose those words not expecting random forum people to claim that Malack is a vampire. Cause the simple solution couldn't be that V has a chance to give some advice to Malack since V has adopted children, to help him not worry about that special bond.

All the arguments have for vampirism is blind speculation.


I also note that, if "the right person" refers to a potential mate rather than a potential "child", then remarkably little emphasis is being put on that person. Of course, Malack *is* quoting Tarquin, who does go through wives rather quickly.
Also mammals are disgusting when they mate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0567.html), and we don't know how much of a marriage bond lizardfolk have with each other, if any.

[allenw]

Or maybe Rich chose those words not expecting random forum people to claim that Malack is a vampire.

I don't see how that's possible. Many people in multiple threads have been claiming that Malack is a vampire ever since he showed up. And even if Rich never read his own boards (or even the thread titles), I'm confident that he expected that *some* people might conclude that a fanged, black-cloaked albino cleric of a Death god, with a "very special diet" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0743.html), *might* be a vampire.

[Kish]

Malack is Severus Snape!

(Context: One of the newsgroup theories about Professor Severus Snape, in the Harry Potter books, was that he was a vampire. Someone actually asked J. K. Rowling that in an interview. She replied, "Uh...I don't think so," in a very obvious "where on earth did you get that?" way.

The advocates of Snape-is-a-vampire promptly declared that, "Uh...I don't think so" was semantically equivalent to, "I do not wish to answer that question.")

[urkthegurk]

Really? Tarquin, who has known Malack for 20+ years said he was surprised at Malack making mummies, thinking he was against that sort of thing; i.e. the creation of undead.

Now why in the name of Gary Gygax would Tarquin say that if Malack had undead kids at one point?


Um. He's a vampire, and creating mummies is distasteful to him? Shambling shells of corpses that can mumble words and stuff, they're basically the natural enemy of vampires since they're immune to most vampire abilities... I can see an undead creature feeling pretty scummy about creating lower forms of undead!

Just a theory, but it works. Don't dismiss the undead-ness yet!

[Kish]

Variant Cleric Ability: Dismiss Undead!

[EmperorSarda]

I'm confident that he expected that *some* people might conclude that a fanged, black-cloaked albino cleric of a Death god, with a "very special diet" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0743.html), *might* be a vampire.

Oh look who else didn't eat that dinner (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0747.html) due to their poor health or constitution score, V must be a vampire too!

[Fish]

Malack is unusual, certainly; his speech balloons are unlike those of the other lizard folk.

However, his speech balloons are not like a vampire's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0474.html). Is there any other beastie with similar speech bubbles?

[Gift Jeraff]

Malack is unusual, certainly; his speech balloons are unlike those of the other lizard folk.

However, his speech balloons are not like a vampire's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0474.html). Is there any other beastie with similar speech bubbles?

Characters (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0006.html) of (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html) frail (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html) health (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html).

Much like this thread.

[Emperordaniel]

Oh look who else didn't eat that dinner (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0747.html) due to their poor health or constitution score, V must be a vampire too!

Well, Vaarsuvius did have fangs and pale skin... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0635.html) :smalltongue:

[Snails]

The point about sunlight has merit, but it is not insurmountable for someone high level in a very magical world. I am a strong advocate of the vampirism hypothesis, although I do recognize there is a non-small chance it is incorrect.

But I like it! :smallbiggrin:

I am 1000% certain Malack is hiding something creepy with respect to his eating habits -- vampirism is the most elegant fit.

It is plain crazy illogical that Malack could survive into high levels in an adventuring party without ever meeting opposition that was savvy enough to pop a weakling cleric first. Even Nale is more than smart enough to figure that one out. If you are running on d8 and have a negative Con mod, going to d12 is a huge step up in survivability.

I am sure that Malack was born an albino -- albinoism statistically correlates with health problems. Apparent albinoism also would conveniently make other "symptoms" a little harder to spot.

[Snails]

Malack is unusual, certainly; his speech balloons are unlike those of the other lizard folk.

However, his speech balloons are not like a vampire's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0474.html). Is there any other beastie with similar speech bubbles?

Well, if that strip is a reliable guide, it is obvious that mummies do not talk like mummies. Really, that particular strip is Haley's imagination, not an actual sighting of undeath.

[Gift Jeraff]

There's also the heavily templated snail. The only undead template he has is vampiric and he has those same speech balloons.

[allenw]

Oh look who else didn't eat that dinner (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0747.html) due to their poor health or constitution score, V must be a vampire too!

I believe V is a vegetarian.

In any case, you appear to be missing my point.
Do any of Malack's traits, singly or together, prove he's a vampire (or other undead)? No.
Does Malack have multiple traits that have led people to speculate that he *might* be a vampire? Absolutely; and that speculation started soon after he appeared.
Is this accidental on Rich's part? I very strongly doubt it. Whether or not Malack is a vampire, I'm confident that we're meant to *wonder* if he might be one.
Even if it was originally accidental, however (like V's gender-ambiguity was), strips such as764 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0764.html) (which we were discussing) IMO show that Rich has been deliberately preserving the possibility.

Fortunately, unlike V's gender (which I don't expect ever to learn), it seems likely that we'll learn considerably more about Malack by the of this story arc.

[Gift Jeraff]

I thought the reason for V eating in his/her room was obvious: s/he was trying to contact Girard, Serini, and Hinjo.

[Fish]

Well, if that strip is a reliable guide, it is obvious that mummies do not talk like mummies. Really, that particular strip is Haley's imagination, not an actual sighting of undeath.
Except that the white-on-black speech bubble is used for any other undead in the story so far; wights, the lich, and ghasts (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0107.html); even these guys in #106 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0106.html) who appear to be zombies have white-text-without-bubble that is pretty consistent with mummy-speak (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0856.html) (and consistent with Rich's style of only using speech bubbles when there is important foreground conversation).

Rich was consistent with speech balloon colors of the young adult black dragon (#185) and the mama five hundred strips later (#629). It's a safe bet that if Malack were a vampire, he would use an undead speech bubble. He might be hiding it for some reason ... but I wouldn't bet on it.

[EmperorSarda]

I believe V is a vegetarian.

In any case, you appear to be missing my point.
Do any of Malack's traits, singly or together, prove he's a vampire (or other undead)? No.
Does Malack have multiple traits that have led people to speculate that he *might* be a vampire? Absolutely; and that speculation started soon after he appeared.
Is this accidental on Rich's part? I very strongly doubt it. Whether or not Malack is a vampire, I'm confident that we're meant to *wonder* if he might be one.
Even if it was originally accidental, however (like V's gender-ambiguity was), strips such as764 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0764.html) (which we were discussing) IMO show that Rich has been deliberately preserving the possibility.

Fortunately, unlike V's gender (which I don't expect ever to learn), it seems likely that we'll learn considerably more about Malack by the of this story arc.

Except the difference between V's gender and Malack being a vampire or not is that The Giant makes jokes about V's gender frequently. Where are the jokes, or even the hints, that Malack may be undead in the comic?

Or greater question, how often has a simple solution been the answer? Take Tarquin and his spot check, before the Giant came and clarified that it was a spot check and not Trap Sense from the Barbarian or Rogue classes, everyone assumed it was.

So why cannot this be the same, the simple answer is what has been told us: Malack is a white albino lizardfolk with poor health whose non-undead children were killed by Nale and wonders about having that special bond of parenthood with an adopted kid. Who views undeath with distate, viewing death as a sort of final resting place.

As The Giant has said before, (paraphrasing) Not everything has a hidden meaning.

[allenw]

Where are the jokes, or even the hints, that Malack may be undead in the comic?
You mean *apart* from being a fanged, black-cloaked albino cleric of a Death god, with a "very special diet", who speaks in an ambiguous manner about replacing his dead children? I'm not sure at this point; most of the "Malack is a vampire!" threads were a year or two ago (as was this one, originally), so my memory is hazy. :smallsmile:


Or greater question, how often has a simple solution been the answer? Take Tarquin and his spot check, before the Giant came and clarified that it was a spot check and not Trap Sense from the Barbarian or Rogue classes, everyone assumed it was.

So why cannot this be the same, the simple answer is what has been told us: Malack is a white albino lizardfolk with poor health whose non-undead children were killed by Nale and wonders about having that special bond of parenthood with an adopted kid. Who views undeath with distate, viewing death as a sort of final resting place.

(bolding mine)
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes) :smallwink:

But to answer your question: Sure, that may be true. I'm not saying that anything cannot be true; I'm saying that one thing *can* be true.
Though I guess I have said that it *almost* cannot be true that Rich didn't know that some people think Malack might be a vampire.



As The Giant has said before, (paraphrasing) Not everything has a hidden meaning.
Some things do. Just ask Vaarsuvius.

[HZ514]

I'm not sure at this point; most of the "Malack is a vampire!" threads were a year or two ago (as was this one, originally), so my memory is hazy. :smallsmile:

Holy cow. I had no idea Malack first appeared back in 2010...time flies.

[Fish]

You mean *apart* from being a fanged, black-cloaked albino cleric of a Death god, with a "very special diet", who speaks in an ambiguous manner about replacing his dead children?
...without an undead speech bubble, seen in daylight. (I'll disregard the fangs; all lizard people seem to have them.)

Your argument is akin to saying, "Look, it's got sharp bottom teeth, four legs and a tail. It must be a pig."

I'll make a free present of a wacky theory: Malack is a cannibal who eats other lizard people to bolster his frail constitution. Nale took the unhatched eggs (Malack's gender-inspecific children) and served them to him in an omelet. Malack cannot raise his children from the dead because he ate them; he does not know what sex they would have been.

Silly as it is, it is more consistent with the vampire theory, because the things which rule out vampires (daylight, speech bubbles) don't rule out cannibalism.

[Snails]

What does the "official" undead speech ballon look like?

[Gift Jeraff]

The opposite of the standard speech balloon--black with white text/borders. You know, the one used by Xykon, Xykon's "quadruplets," wights, zombies, ghouls, ghasts, the vampiric snail in the Dragon continuity, and Hypothetically Undead Roy. Even the mummies' whispers are white instead of black.

[Fish]

Let me also put the theory out there: maybe Rich doesn't even know himself how (or when) Nale killed Malack's children. It may not be important enough to the plot, or even related to Malack's albinism.

[Caractacus]

Holy cow. I had no idea Malack first appeared back in 2010...time flies.

EXACTLY what went through my mind. I can't believe it... :smalleek:

[Themrys]

"Right person"? He said "right person" and not "right woman"...maybe Malack is a female lizardfolk?

Seems more likely to me than the vampire-theory.

However, I do like the idea that Nale didn't kill children as such, but eggs. That explains why Nale did it at all - it could have been an accident.

[Fish]

I also wondered myself if Malack were female; Rich made a point of showing us that lizard women shouldn't have breasts (the prostitute, remember?). That may have been a setup for a gender ambiguity to follow.

However, Tarquin also calls Malack male in #724. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0724.html) "Nale killed his children."

Thus, for Malack to be female, Tarquin must have some reason to conceal it, or he must simply be unaware of it.

[Snails]

One more small point in support of the vampire theory: Maybe Nale did not know he killed Malack's "children", thus his extremely clueless and offensive behavior? (See "How's the family?" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0811.html))

Because even if Malack were a vampire, it is quite possible for Nale not to realize as much. If Nale threw together a plan to seize control, he could easily have dispatched a clutch of undead hiding in the palace along the way without much thought. To Nale, they would have looked like a bunch of unimportant minions to a creepy death cleric. Kill them to reduce reinforcements -- no biggie.

[Leecros]

One more small point in support of the vampire theory: Maybe Nale did not know he killed Malack's "children", thus his extremely clueless and offensive behavior? (See "How's the family?" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0811.html))

Because even if Malack were a vampire, it is quite possible for Nale not to realize as much. If Nale threw together a plan to seize control, he could easily have dispatched a clutch of undead hiding in the palace along the way without much thought. To Nale, they would have looked like a bunch of unimportant minions to a creepy death cleric. Kill them to reduce reinforcements -- no biggie.

I wouldn't really call it 'in support of the vampire theory.'

by saying "How's the family" it implies that Nale at least knew that Malack had a family. That would mean that Nale probably either seen Malack with them or heard him talk about them. So he knows they exist.

Had Nale dispatched of Malack's children before his original plan unfolded, Malack would likely have known about it then and it would not have been new news as it would have come up when Malack confronted Nale with the rest of the group. I don't really see where you're getting the 'clueless' part about that scene. I see the awkwardness of it. What would you do in that situation if you turned around and the father of someone you murdered was staring right at you in shock? As far as the offensive question Nale asked....He's Evil. There really isn't much else to say about that. A good person in that situation would probably do their best to apologize, a neutral person in that situation would probably ask about the weather, an evil person would twist the knife.

[Snails]

Had Nale dispatched of Malack's children before his original plan unfolded, Malack would likely have known about it then and it would not have been new news as it would have come up when Malack confronted Nale with the rest of the group.

You are making a number of assumptions here not directly supported by any evidence. You could be correct. Or not.

My point is that Nale could easily have destroyed a clutch of undead and not known Malack personally thought of them as "children".

We have no idea if Malack and Nale had a nice little chat during the battle.

Tarquin being Tarquin, we have abundant reasons to believe that Tarquin would have preferred to not kill Nale. Thus it would not be surprising if Tarquin chose to maneuver Malack away from his son, until the LG was forced to simply flee.

[EmperorSarda]

One more small point in support of the vampire theory: Maybe Nale did not know he killed Malack's "children", thus his extremely clueless and offensive behavior? (See "How's the family?" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0811.html))

Because even if Malack were a vampire, it is quite possible for Nale not to realize as much. If Nale threw together a plan to seize control, he could easily have dispatched a clutch of undead hiding in the palace along the way without much thought. To Nale, they would have looked like a bunch of unimportant minions to a creepy death cleric. Kill them to reduce reinforcements -- no biggie.

You're making the assumption that Malack is a vampire, which is only sheer speculation. Regardless, Nale is a mass-murderer, minions or actual children, Nale would have no compunctions about killing either.

That being sad, Nale didn't ask "How's the family?" out clueless behavior but because Nale is a jerk and is rubbing salt in Malack's 'wound'.

[Fish]

One more small point in support of the vampire theory: Maybe Nale did not know he killed Malack's "children", thus his extremely clueless and offensive behavior? (See "How's the family?" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0811.html))
1. Nale may not be aware that he had killed Malack's "children."
2. ???
3. Therefore, Malack could be a vampire.

I see where you begin, and I see where you end, but I don't see the step where the one proves the other. It is possible that Nale accidentally (or unknowingly) killed Malack's completely normal, mortal children. Nothing about Nale's ignorance definitely proves or disproves the vampire possibility. The two are unconnected.

Your theory that "it's possible for Nale to have killed a clutch of undead for perfectly innocuous reasons" holds true for any subspecies or variant of lizardfolk. It's possible Malack's children are half-lizard, one-quarter ogre, one-quarter blue dragon. It's possible Malack's children are werewolf-lizards.

[Emperordaniel]

One more small point in support of the vampire theory: Maybe Nale did not know he killed Malack's "children", thus his extremely clueless and offensive behavior? (See "How's the family?" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0811.html))

Because even if Malack were a vampire, it is quite possible for Nale not to realize as much. If Nale threw together a plan to seize control, he could easily have dispatched a clutch of undead hiding in the palace along the way without much thought. To Nale, they would have looked like a bunch of unimportant minions to a creepy death cleric. Kill them to reduce reinforcements -- no biggie.

If that was so, how do you explain Nale obviously taunting Malack (silently, of course) in the eighth panel of this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0822.html)? :smallconfused:

[Snails]

If that was so, how do you explain Nale obviously taunting Malack (silently, of course) in the eighth panel of this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0822.html)? :smallconfused:

Taunting while under the wing of your high-level and extremely competent father might be perceived as different from taunting in other situations. And, of course, the earlier example might not even taunting (from Nale's POV), so your point here could be completely irrelevant.

[Snails]

That being sad, Nale didn't ask "How's the family?" out clueless behavior but because Nale is a jerk and is rubbing salt in Malack's 'wound'.

Nale's expression and body language suggest otherwise -- he looks like he is cluelessly "steppin' in it". Now the obvious explanation for Nale's cluelessness could easily be correct -- he is just caught on the wrong foot and flailing in a Nale-ish kind of way. I am simply offering alternative kind of Nale Is Clueless Here explanation -- that Nale is clueless specifically because he actually does not understand what his own words will mean to Malack.

[EmperorSarda]

that Nale is clueless specifically because he actually does not understand what his own words will mean to Malack.

Except Nale knows he killed Malack's children. Nale hasn't questioned Malack's need for revenge or the death of Malack's children in any of the strips (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0820.html) where (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0821.html) it has been mentioned (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0822.html) around (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0854.html) him.

If there was any question about what he did, or what his would mean, he certainly doesn't show it. Nale is cruel, heartless, and evil; he's poking Malack's buttons the only way he can in the surprise round Malack had on him. Nale may be an idiot at times, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know how to push people's buttons. Besides, we know based off who he is that he doesn't regret killing Malack's children, so why ask about Malack's family if not to reopen old emotional wounds?